What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

 

[HTacianas]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

It was not a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium. All the negatives people talk about are myths. Most of it stems from an anti-Catholic bias among protestant groups.

 

[Neogaia777]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

It is always very "dangerous", "risky", etc, I mean just look what it did to Christianity in the form of the Catholic church after they did that over the ages, etc, and how very far removed they became from the true Christianity that existed before that, etc...

But, that much being said, I do believe it was all a part of God's overall plan for that time, and going into the future after that, etc, but I think it needs a very drastic severe makeover now, etc...

Like giving up their idols for one thing, and them all going back to much more true Christian ways way before that union was ever done and/or formed, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

God knows the heart of each person regardless of man made institutions, dogmas and decrees. Constantine broke a barrier for Christian's just as Cyrus broke a barrier for the Jews. From there freedom was established. Be blessed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is always very "dangerous", "risky", etc, I mean just look what it did to Christianity in the form of the Catholic church after they did that over the ages, etc, and how very far removed they became from the true Christianity that existed before that, etc...

But, that much being said, I do believe it was all a part of God's overall plan for that time, and going into the future after that, etc, but I think it needs a very drastic severe makeover now, etc...

Like giving up their idols for one thing, and them all going back to much more true Christian ways way before that union was ever done and/or formed, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Why did God's plan require the Church to drift into fundamental error with it's association between it and the state?

 

[Neogaia777]

Why did God's plan require the Church to drift into fundamental error with it's association between it and the state?

I don't know exactly, I just know that it was pretty effective for many, many years, despite some of it's flaws, with getting the Gospel out and spread all over during that time, etc...

And not everyone within the Catholic church was "bad" either, or a bad person, or was completely full of bad, evil people either, and many of them, and many of the saints most especially, etc, were very very holy, and very, very good people, who did a lot of good things, etc, and many really were very much genuinely and truly very humble people also, etc, and at least that church saw the wisdom in recognizing that over the ages, etc, I just wished they didn't felt like they had to diefy them, etc...

It was mainly just some of the leadership that was bad, etc, but not all of all them were or are completely bad either, etc...

It might have been the right thing at the time for the "dark ages", and for some of what might be some very dark, or maybe even very much more darker times or ages otherwise or without them maybe, etc...?

Again, I don't really specifically know, etc, but just kind of feel like it was a part of God's plan for or at or during those times maybe, etc...?

But things are different now, and they need to change now, etc, or I fear for them now when Jesus comes back, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Why did God's plan require the Church to drift into fundamental error with it's association between it and the state?

Some would say that the Gospel only survived because of the Catholic church and the Catholic church being formed for and from and during that time, etc...

But like I said, things are very, very different now, and I think they need to repent right now, or I fear for them, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't know exactly, I just know that it was pretty effective for many, many years, despite some of it's flaws, with getting the Gospel out and spread all over during that time, etc...

And not everyone within the Catholic church was "bad" either, or a bad person, or was completely full of bad, evil people either, and many of them, and many of the saints most especially, etc, were very very holy, and very, very good people, who did a lot of good things, etc, and many really were very much genuinely and truly very humble people also, etc, and at least that church saw the wisdom in recognizing that over the ages, etc, I just wished they didn't felt like they had to diefy them, etc...

It was mainly just some of the leadership that was bad, etc, but not all of all them were or are completely bad either, etc...

It might have been the right thing at the time for the "dark ages", and for some of what might be some very dark, or maybe even very much more darker times or ages otherwise or without them maybe, etc...?

Again, I don't really specifically know, etc, but just kind of feel like it was a part of God's plan for or at or during those times maybe, etc...?

But things are different now, and they need to change now, etc, or I fear for them now when Jesus comes back, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Do you think God was with the Church during this mild apostasy?

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think God was with the Church during this mild apostasy?

You'll have to tell me what specific mild apostasy you are referring to or are talking about, cause I'm kind of disconnected from the world a lot now, and not much up to speed on what is going on a lot in these modern day times that much, etc...?

So what, or which, mild apostasy are you referring to, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think God was with the Church during this mild apostasy?

Or if maybe you mean back in or during those times, etc, yes, I still do think God was with a lot of them, etc, but maybe only with some of them in order to protect and/or guide his higher interests/purposes only maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[timothyu]

Why did God's plan require the Church to drift into fundamental error with it's association between it and the state?

PR. It was scripture that was being forwarded. The off track religion did not matter other than as a means to forward scripture. Truth is in scripture, not the churches of man. And as a side note, once scripture was mass produced, churches became irrelevant (although they would be the first to defend their existence as a middleman, and see it necessary to control the narrative to lead people away from the Kingdom which would convict them for what they had done)
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Do you think God was with the Church during this mild apostasy?

God knows how to use rebellious man for His own purposes, which He did. As for 'mild apostasy', a movement which was to represent an opposite way to the ways of man then instead whoring itself to the ways of man and eventually become an institution of man itself, could not be called mild in it's treachery. It could however be used by God for the purpose of forwarding scripture , which unlike the doctrines of man, remain focused upon His Kingdom. The religion however, did not. It went from Jesus' good news of the coming Kingdom/governance of God over man, to being all about what was in it for us. Man has a habit of neglecting God in order to make everything about self as the scriptures show from end to end.

 

[hedrick]

I think there were two ways in which things should have been different:

1) Our unity is in Christ, not theological opinion. They should have assured Constantine that both Arians and non-Arians share in this, and that because Christians love and forgive each other, there would be no animosity to threaten the unity of the State. Of course to say this to Constantine it would have to be true. It wasn’t.

2) It was fine to get together to talk about the issue, and to come up with a confession that represents a consensus. But the goal should not be to condemn others. Far too many Christian writings show an attitude that suggests using theological differences as a tool in struggles for control within the Church.

While I have no problem with the Nicene Creed itself, I object to the whole context in which is was developed and implemented. For that reason I would not want to consider it to have any authority. (Calvin seems to have agreed with this, by the way, though his reasons might have been slightly different.)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think there were two ways in which things should have been different:

1) Our unity is in Christ, not theological opinion. They should have assured Constantine that both Arians and non-Arians share in this, and that because Christians love and forgive each other, there would be no animosity to threaten the unity of the State. Of course to say this to Constantine it would have to be true. It wasn’t.

This would mean the presence of Arianism within the Roman Empire and as a competing religion to Nicene Christianity. Is this a better option than what happened under Theodosius and Nicene Christianity becoming the official religion of ROme?

2) It was fine to get together to talk about the issue, and to come up with a confession that represents a consensus. But the goal should not be to condemn others. Far too many Christian writings show an attitude that suggests using theological differences as a tool in struggles for control within the Church.

The goal is unity but condemnation naturally follows when one cannot unify. Not even Paul was above condemning people for their error. So why should the Church be concerned with such a modern concern?

While I have no problem with the Nicene Creed itself, I object to the whole context in which is was developed and implemented. For that reason I would not want to consider it to have any authority. (Calvin seems to have agreed with this, by the way, though his reasons might have been slightly different.)

So you would approve of the Nicene creed if it didn't have the anathemas in it or the rules for what Clergy and laity should do?

 

[hedrick]

This would mean the presence of Arianism within the Roman Empire and as a competing religion to Nicene Christianity. Is this a better option than what happened under Theodosius and Nicene Christianity becoming the official religion of ROme?

Yes. Christianity needs a better way deal with theological disagreement than force. Even it means tolerating variety. Starting in the 16th Cent we paid the price for this. Once the government was no longer willing to enforce theological conformity, we had no other approach.

The goal is unity but condemnation naturally follows when one cannot unify. Not even Paul was above condemning people for their error. So why should the Church be concerned with such a modern concern?

Paul was expressing his own views. He didn't have any ability to get people arrested or even excommunicated. The worst he could do was recommend church discipline. He seems to have gotten one person disciplined for sexual immorality. It doesn't appear that he everyone to agree with him on theology.

So you would approve of the Nicene creed if it didn't have the anathemas in it or the rules for what Clergy and laity should do?

When people (including me) speak of the Nicene Creed they aren't typically including those things. They were decided at Nicea, but I don't consider them part of the creed. The problem isn't the content of the creed but the political process it's part of.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes. Christianity needs a better way deal with theological disagreement than force. Even it means tolerating variety. Starting in the 16th Cent we paid the price for this. Once the government was no longer willing to enforce theological conformity, we had no other approach.

Is the pacifist way the better or best way? In the alternative you present I see no way in which Christendom could remain united or have a mostly united front. Heretical groups and movements would be free to establish themselves and we would see a situation like we do in the current day. Christianity utterly fractured and unable be unified on even a basic level.

It remains to be seen that what happened in actual history wasn't the best thing to happen.

Paul was expressing his own views. He didn't have any ability to get people arrested or even excommunicated. The worst he could do was recommend church discipline. He seems to have gotten one person disciplined for sexual immorality. It doesn't appear that he everyone to agree with him on theology.

Paul didn't have any ability to excommunicate? I beg to differ. Still, why is force in the instance of Church authority okay, but not okay in the instance of secular authority? Your still doing something against someone's will. Maybe that man who was sleeping with his Mother in law still wanted to remain in the Church. Who was Paul to cast him out and hand him over to Satan?

When people (including me) speak of the Nicene Creed they aren't typically including those things. They were decided at Nicea, but I don't consider them part of the creed. The problem isn't the content of the creed but the political process it's part of.

The anathema to the arians is actually part of the creed. I find it interesting that you accept as legitimate Christians those who deny the deity of Christ. I cannot agree here and must consider them non-Christian since this is an issue of fundamental importance.

Yet what was wrong about the political process of the Creed? Should Constantine not sought to have Christians united? If we think about the Nicene Creed and Constantinople it's one of the only things to have Christians at least on some level united today.

 

[hedrick]

Paul didn't have any ability to excommunicate? I beg to differ. Still, why is force in the instance of Church authority okay, but not okay in the instance of secular authority? Your still doing something against someone's will. Maybe that man who was sleeping with his Mother in law still wanted to remain in the Church. Who was Paul to cast him out and hand him over to Satan?

Paul didn't run that church. He couldn't personally exclude anyone from it. As far as we can tell from 2 Cor, the church accepted his judgement, but it was the local church that did the discipline, as he describes it in 2 Cor 2:6

The anathema to the arians is actually part of the creed. I find it interesting that you accept as legitimate Christians those who deny the deity of Christ. I cannot agree here and must consider them non-Christian since this is an issue of fundamental importance.

It's not in any version I've heard used liturgically. I checked the text in Wikipedia. If they're right, it was present in the first version, but not the one from Constantinople. It's the second version that is normally referred to as the Nicene Creed.

The world has every right to judge us by how we treat each other, even more than how we treat others. I think the record on that is not encouraging.

 

[timothyu]

Should Constantine not sought to have Christians united?

This is what happens when the church abandons the Kingdom. It fails to see the difference between the world and the ways of God. Constantine sought to unite Christians for the same reason he painted crosses on his armies shields during the Roman civil war. It wasn't for God's sake. It was originally to have Christians in the opposing army not fight his own and it worked as he won the war as a result. Further uniting of the Christians across all of Rome was an insurance policy against the western Latin side rising up against the eastern Greek side of the Empire, at least with Christians as opposing soldiers and the public western Christians on the side of the unified church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Paul didn't run that church. He couldn't personally exclude anyone from it. As far as we can tell from 2 Cor, the church accepted his judgement, but it was the local church that did the discipline, as he describes it in 2 Cor 2:6

The issue isn't so much Church discipline and how it's carried out. Only that there is such a thing as Church discipline and that it is carried out. If they respect Paul enough to expel a member for a time and we can presume this was done righteously (lest we think Paul was wrong in this regard), then what argument is there for not using force in a secular context, since the Church has always used force in it's own religious context?

Church discipline is not a new thing and the measures taken against some back in the day, many would consider harsh.

It's not in any version I've heard used liturgically. I checked the text in Wikipedia. If they're right, it was present in the first version, but not the one from Constantinople. It's the second version that is normally referred to as the Nicene Creed.

The world has every right to judge us by how we treat each other, even more than how we treat others. I think the record on that is not encouraging.

The second version is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The anathema is not included any more for reasons I can only speculate here without looking it up. Though the anathema was never rescinded.

The world judging us on the use of force is hardly anything worth appealing to. Since the world today and forever has always used force as a means of compelling people to do what it wants. Be that religions, political systems or philosophies. Only force moves objects, so why are Christians to be held to a special standard?

Are you arguing from a generally pacifist stance here or only as regards the Council of Nicaea and Christianization in general?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is what happens when the church abandons the Kingdom. It fails to see the difference between the world and the ways of God. Constantine sought to unite Christians for the same reason he painted crosses on his armies shields during the Roman civil war. It wasn't for God's sake. It was originally to have Christians in the opposing army not fight his own and it worked as he won the war as a result. Further uniting of the Christians across all of Rome was an insurance policy against the western Latin side rising up against the eastern Greek side of the Empire, at least with Christians as opposing soldiers and the public western Christians on the side of the unified church.

What should the Church have done instead?

 

[hedrick]

Since the world today and forever has always used force as a means of compelling people to do what it wants. Be that religions, political systems or philosophies. Only force moves objects, so why are Christians to be held to a special standard?

This is a strange defense. We're supposed to have an approach to others that is better than the world's.

The word pacifist isn’t one I’d use in this context.

I’m not a pacifist. I believe in forgiveness and reconciliation. But sometimes that’s not possible, and people need to be defended from those who would attack them.

But Arians do not threaten me with violence. They are trying to serve Christ. I even understand how one might come to their conclusion from Scripture, though I disagree. I think in the end good theology will win, and if we can allow that happen while still respecting others as fellow servants of Christ, the Church will be much closer to the Kingdom envisioned by Christ.

Part of this is because I take a broader view than some of what is acceptable for Christians. The approach that led to Nicea leads us (as I’ve seen in CF) to debates on whether it is sinful to sing anything other than Psalms in church or whether people using individual spoons for communion are apostate. You only have to read Christian Advice and various others areas to see just how legalism (and demands for doctrinal conformity are another kind of legalism) damages Christians.

If have to say that if I came to CF as a person from the outside interested in Christianity, I’d run in the other direction. I'd become yet another person who respected Jesus but didn't want to be associated with a church.